At 12:58 22/11/01 -0500, you wrote: Hi Arthur,
Let me jump to your comment about the WTO: (AC) <<<< But the will to dominate underscores my suspicion of the activities of the WTO. Whose interests do they represent and why are they so intent on achieving their aims? >>>> Well, as I understand it the WTO was set up by governments on the premise that trade is the means by which individuals/corporations/regions/nations can amplify their standard of living. Increasing your standard of living by investing and working hard is one thing, but if you can trade your specialised product with someone else's then the effect is multiplied. This is why most countries are keen to join the WTO -- and developing countries more than most. South Korea, for example, a mainly agricultural nation with an income of about US$500 p.a. per worker in the 1950s, now has an income of something like US30,000 p.a. even in these depressed times. The WTO is a good example of the checks and balances I mentioned in my last message. Although it is a "democratic" organisation in that its rules have to be established by all its member governments (every government however small has a veto), it is also a cockpit in which various governments, or blocs of governments (e.g. EU and NAFTA) battle against each other. And, of course, behind the scenes back on their homeground some, if not most, governments are heavily influenced by large multinational organisations, interest groups and non-governmental organisations, some of them very powerful and all of them with their own axe to grind. By itself, this situation would, of course, produce permanent chaos or stalemate in many trade disputes, unless all the governments did not also agree that any deeply entrenched dispute within WTO should then go to an arbitration panel consisting of other member governments not directly involved in the dispute. Sometimes the decisions of this panel go in the right direction (that is, towards freer trade), and sometimes not (that is, maintaining protectionism). In the sense that these have to be final decisions (or else the disputes would simply continue ad infinitum), this gives rise to the totally unwarranted assertion by critics and protestors that the WTO is an undemocratic organisation. The WTO is a highly imperfect organisation but its aims are worthy ones. If critics (such as Prof John McMurtry) can think of a better method of increasing prosperity all round, particularly for the poorer countries, then they ought to put forward constructive and detailed proposals instead of writing diatribes. As to my point about power where I wrote: >KH >However, there's one truth which he (probably unwittingly) demonstrates. >This is that homo sapiens, particularly individual males of the species, >has a genetic urge to exercise power which has evolved (and was necessary) >for millions of years in small group and tribal contexts. This power urge >is thus well nigh impossible to eradicate. It doesn't need more than a few >moments' thought to realise that history demonstrates this conclusively. > >Modern technology and communications means that individuals or small groups >are capable of dominating a variety of human institutions which operate on >a universal scale.......snip, snip....snip and you replied: >AC >Thanx for your insight here Keith. If as you say "This power urge >is thus well nigh impossible to eradicate.", then perhaps it should be >recognized, understood and tempered. >I think this is one of the things the protest groups are trying to >accomplish. Well, I'll go along with you to the extent that I think many of the protest groups are rightfully drawing attention to great injustices that are taking place between the rich and the poor countries, and also that bodies like the World Bank and the IMF have not been notably successful so far. But they, and the WTO, were established with the best of motives and there are still many good people associated with these bodies. There are reformists working within them as well as constructive critics working from without. But what's really needed is help for the very poorest countries. New ideas are needed for financial investment and management at local levels -- if possible, a global currency issued by a global bank. This was first proposed by Richard Cooper of Harvard University in 1984 and has been more recently seconded by George Soros and also Jeffrey Garten of the Yale School of Management. But, if it ever becomes established, let it be totally independent from nation-states (particularly the powerful ones, which don't need such a bank) in order to lend money to even the smallest shoots of enterprise in developing countries. The Grameen Bank is already showing what could happen. In his article, Prof John McMurtry, all too easily uses terms like "hierarchy" in the context of the IMF, World Bank and WTO. But there are far nastier forms of hierarchy in the world, such as those we have been recently glimpsing in Pakistan and Afghanistan. It is these traditional local hierarchies which are really holding back enterprise and education in the poorest of the developing countries, the ones who, as yet, are not able to play much of a part in world trade. Keith Hudson ___________________________________________________________________ Keith Hudson, General Editor, Calus <http://www.calus.org> 6 Upper Camden Place, Bath BA1 5HX, England Tel: +44 1225 312622; Fax: +44 1225 447727; mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ________________________________________________________________________
